Sunday, March 04, 2012

Something that fits with game

I was browsing through an online personal advice column and came across a post from a young woman which fits in well with some of the ideas put out by those who practise "game".

Her post is reproduced below:

My boyfriend is too nice - the guy flirting with me is macho - what shall I do?

My boyfriend is super nice, I really like him. He treats me well, gives me gifts every now and then (but not too often, so I still really look forward to them), does a whole lot of fun things with me and shows me things I never knew about. And he's always there for me...I really enjoy the long conversations with him in the evening. And I have to admit, the sex with him is great.

The guy flirting with me is the image of what a man should be...strong, the leader amongst his friends and at work, daring, extremely charming and funny. When I begin to be bitchy he just says "Sweety, come here, sit on my lap" in a commanding tone that is also really tender. I would follow him blindly everywhere, as he knows what he wants.

My girlfriend believes he is one of those men who takes part in the Coke ads. I'm not sleeping with him, I would separate from my boyfriend before that would happen. Of course he attempts to do so, but I'm remaining consistent even though I'm turned on.

I no longer know what I want. I know that men like my boyfriend make women happy in the long run and don't only hang around for a short affair. But since I've been in contact with the guy flirting with me, I can't value my boyfriend as much as before.

What shall I do?

Obviously this girl is not following a traditional morality here. I found her post interesting because it shows the dilemma that seems to be part of the romantic life of many women. Many women are drawn to a kind of man (in gamespeak the "alpha" male) who is unlikely to commit to them in the long-run.

Note though that this particular woman seems to know the score. She knows that the flirty alpha guy isn't likely to be the one to make her happy in the long run - her boyfriend is. In a different kind of society, one in which a stable relationship would bring a woman an important measure of material security, respectability, independence from her parents, and a father for her children, then the boyfriend would have a much stronger hand than he has in today's society.

The sexual revolution has altered the balance in favour of the "alpha" male.

It's interesting too that the woman's true feelings, as revealed in her post, are so far removed from what feminists believe about relationships. Feminists often tell men that they need to cultivate a kind of androgynous egalitarianism to appeal to women. In this feminist take on relationships, any problems can be solved by men doing more of the housework. But what this particular woman wants is not a harmlessly domesticated man, but a man who takes even her worst moods in his stride, who is a leader, who knows what he wants, as well as being charming and funny.

The gamists often claim, and it might well be true, that the ideal man for a woman would be what they sometimes call a "lesser alpha" or a "higher beta" - in other words, a man who combines the qualities of this woman's boyfriend, including an ability to commit, with some of the qualities of the "alpha" - such as the confidence in dealing with a woman's moods and an ability to lead rather than to supplicate.

And what did this woman choose eventually to do? She left a note in the discussion thread later on to announce:

I've come to a decision. I told the flirty guy that although he is charming there's nothing lasting that can come of it. And that the whole episode has been more about my ego than about him. I believe that sometimes you have to think according to reason. We women always go for these player men, but if I had gone along with it the end result would have been losing my boyfriend for an adventure.

11 comments:

But what if she dates the Alpha man and on closer inspection he appears not so Alpha? Its like dating Marylin Monroe and being disappointed with how she looks first thing in the morning. People feel entitled to the best and have little patience for anything but that. This is worse for women because feminism breeds this entitlement attitude, however, its not exclusive to them. People must battle their expectations, demands and desires before they can expect successful relationships.

This woman has a boyfriend and he is a satisfactory one by her own account. She should NOT be looking at other men in this manner and thinking about trading up, which of course is infidelity. Casual infidelity, ie I should get what is best for me regardless of others, is at the heart of problems with modern relationships.

"And that the whole episode has been more about my ego than about him."

Call me a hard-hearted cynic but its interesting how, with the absence of a traditional shame and honor culture, people rationalize what used to be taboo.

If you don't have rules then life becomes a series of subjective "feelings" and equivocations, doesn't it? Maybe she's trying to make her boyfriend jealous for all we know. She could be fat and was rejected by the "alpha" but has learned to rationalize this rejection through scientific-sounding jargon that allows her to feel it was she who rejected him. Who knows? She could be very, very clever. Smart people can be very messed up.

I agree with Idealart this inappropriate behavior shouldn't be normalised or considered acceptable. I also agree with Anonymous to a degree, not all women want an "alpha/thugish" male, or even necessarily a highly commanding one, in their mate.

Its interesting though when blokes like Neil Strauss got into game they did it because they were nerds who were being looked over and were looking to "level" the playing field with the jocks, so to speak. (Oh by the way for any anti-semites out there most of them were Jewish). But things like game work on exciting the other person, as well as other things, eg lower the self esteem of the person and they look to you for validation. I find it hard to believe that they form the foundational elements of long lasting relationships though. If a girl is pretty surely you need more than that to have a long and successful relationship with her and likewise for game.

If we still had a white society where GENTILE WHITES were in charge of culture-making, the 'beta male' would have absolutely no problem finding a mate.

There is much wrong with your view, Anonymous, but we can begin here: GENTILE WHITES pushed for the normalization of contraception; GENTILE WHITES pushed for no-fault divorce; GENTILE WHITES pushed for equal opportunities for women in education, profession, hell... just about everything. Seems to me GENTILE WHITES are a big part of the problem... at least the ones who've been sleeping at the wheel.

Roissy and Game only makes things worse by helpfully helping white men to conform to Black Norms of loquacious smart ass quips backed up by nothing.

But sometimes "presentation" does trump "substance".

Imagine if you're a man and you have two women who seem to be interested in you. One has taken the trouble to dress in an attractively feminine way, in a nice dress, some jewellery, a little perfume, a little make up. Her long hair has been styled attractively. And she takes the trouble to flirt - she smiles, she laughs at your jokes, she twirls her hair.

The other woman is dressed drably and stands quietly without projecting herself much.

Realistically which option are most men going to go for? Particularly if they are just after a fling?

It would be at least somewhat different if the man were looking for a wife. Then, if he were a bit sensible anyway, he would want to make sure that the woman had inner qualities that would make her a good wife.

Maybe such a man would then try to interact with both women to assess them at a deepe level.

In the past, it was critical for women to get things right. Her future and the future of her children depended on choosing a man who would make a good husband. Therefore, a stable, loyal man in a good job might attract the attention of a husbad-seeking woman.

But a lot of women now view their 20s as party time. They are focused on their own careers and expect to support themselves at this time in their lives.

So they're free to go for men who "appear" attractive - just like the man looking for a fling might readily choose the woman who dresses and flirts in a feminine way.

So the way men dress starts to matter more, their swagger, their boldness, their self-confidence, their sportiness and physique, their place within a social circle etc.

Ok so a man should seek to look good and have confidence. Game involves a little more than that though.

In days gone by men would select women based in part on their physical appearance but that was limited by concepts of social appropriateness. It wasn't considered acceptable just to upgrade one girlfriend for a better looking one, and both women and to a degree other men would look down on this. Stable groups of women would try to limit male behavior from being based solely on physical traits by including or excluding men and women from groups. Men would also encourage other men do the right thing by their stable girlfriends. Group stability had the consequence of encouraging stable relationships, and you still see this often today.

Game and like concepts though work on a different level. They imply and also help create an immediate changeability in relationships. Game itself really only concentrates on the pickup with success being defined as a sexual encounter. A longer term relationship when it does occur is viewed as an extended pick up.

This fast turnover is considered both right and appropriate and is supported on evolutionary grounds, "spread your seed" or "test and try" different people and potential partners etc. It focuses on the levels of immediate interest and heightened desire and not on longer term factors. It also, like the name implies can become a pursuit in itself, with winning and ego boosts going to whoever can apply its principles most effectively and achieve the highest turnover. Again its ok to have high turnover because we live in a big anonymous sea, where there will always be new people arriving etc.

What this does is feed and focus desire, self focused attitudes in relationships and irresponsibility. She's an 8 but I want a 10. He's hot but he's the same, so I should have a change now. This desire is also fueled without social inhibitors, what is best for me right now becomes the lens of how relationships should be viewed, all other considerations being potentially regarded as emotional static. Real relationships become reserved for same sex colleagues as you exchange and compare notes on how you fared. Relationships with the opp sex get cut down to core basics, hot ass, big pecs, and at the same time become more fraught and less satisfying.

Economic reasons are not the only reasons people may want to pair up for extended periods of time, and good relations with the opposite sex help civilise, stabalise, and grow us as people.

What we're seeing today is not just more people engaging in this process, which as said is considered a "fun" pursuit, but also more people, both men and women, crying out in frustration or despair at it. It turns out that rampant desire maybe isn't "fun". That material and mercenary thinking doesn't necessarily lead to satisfaction, happiness or stable relationships and that our own impulses when encouraged and uninhibited can be both destructive to others, ourselves, as well as society.

We should be very reluctant in jumping on board with such a phillosophy.